"Gas taxes have nothing to do with "the bad things" about gasoline."
I didn't say they did, though actually, they do, because those taxes are also used to implement pollution controls and monitor compliance, etc.
But what I said was, we're giving tax rebates to buyers of electric vehicles because the vehicles eliminate most of the bad stuff about gasoline: the polluting fumes, the foreign dependency, the dangerous production system, the onerous distribution system, the chemical dangers, etc. Electricity isn't exactly zero-carbon-footprint or perfectly safe, but it's a whack better than the flammable poison we have to buy from people we currently call our enemies and then pump into the air half-burned.
There's lots of things that are called "free speech" by the people who were being tried for their content that aren't free speech.
The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.
You're certainly free to speak. You're just not necessarily free to make it the only thing that reaches the ears of literally every voter, over and over again, for months before the election.
Because that's not speech. It's an exploit. A hack of the apparatus of informing the electorate. And the difference has nothing to do with the content of what is said, but with how it's delivered.
Corporations are not voters. They do not have the same rights as citizens. They should not have the right to dominate elections. As we've seen over and over again, corporate interests are inimical to the interests of individuals. I and the law will have no problem when they are completely banned from participating as corporations in endorsing or funding candidates.
Now grow the fuck up, turn off Rush Limbaugh, and read a book or two. Look up Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights. It's a good theory.
He's not continuing the policy, and he's certainly not covering anything up.
He's defending the nation in a legal matter. As the Chief Executive and the person who appoints the Attorney General, that's his job. Unfortunately, it's a hateful legal matter left behind by a criminal administration. I'd prefer that his first order in office were to prosecute every one of them.
I don't know why he didn't, but as he's a reasonable person and his enemies are not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
They are restricting their request to the public portion of internet communications. The routing information, not the payload data. The envelope, not the content.
They may or may not get that. It's reasonable to request it. You can encrypt everything else if you want it to be private, but you yourself have to disclose the addressing information to the machinery, and the machinery is considered public. There is no doctor-patient privilege between you and your ISP.
If you don't like the law, just say it. Don't pretend it's one party's fault just because you don't like that party.
After what Carly Fiorina did to H-P, and the nation, and now this tool...hell, I remember when "hp" on the logo meant the very best in quality, not scandal and treason...
And I'm not sure that was ever true. Even if it is made public, it has to be declassified under proper authority to legally be declassified. And if it still has valid security implications, it can remain classified. Which means certain people can't legally discuss it, much less process it on their non-classified machinery, while others will openly discuss it. The idea being at the least that discussing one secret can lead to exposure of another, and mixing secrets and non-secrets in improper ways can confuse what is and isn't secret.
There are a number of issues of invalid classification that were raised in wikileaks' self-justification for publishing this information that should legally force the authorities to declassify those particular items; but clearly that does not apply to the entirety of what they released, and certainly not to the un-analyzed, un-redacted form in which they were released. Leaving in the names of people who are still in danger is a clear violation of law even when properly declassifying information.
At any rate, none of this information has been declassified by the proper authority, so all of it is still legally considered classified, and anyone accessing it is liable to be charged with a crime.
The only unsettled issue here is the scope of the release. It's not merely a few copies of documents that need to be collected and secured, and a few civilians to brief and warn about further disclosure. It's potentially millions of unauthorized computers infected that legally may be seized, an entire society led to misunderstand the role and importance of secrets, and our security apparatus put in a position of looking like fools for trying to follow the law and maybe save a few lives out of the dozens or hundreds that the insecurity apparatus put in danger.
Which brings up the simple question of moral relativism. This started with a few people being killed in a form of collateral damage, and may end up with hundreds being killed in retribution murders. People talk about who has blood on their hands. Well, we all do, in the end, but for some of us the blood comes with moral authority and a lack of criminal guilt.
It is unethical on your behalf to use work resources for private business
Actually it's not, if using those resources doesn't cost the company anything. It may still be against company policy, but that's a contractual problem, not an ethical one.
It is unethical to make the company pay for your time to do those things, though. To the point that it's criminal.
Then I became a consultant, doing a number of jobs for a couple of months each, and realized it was (a) horribly inefficient and (b) privacy-degrading. (That whole thing about unauthorized use of company resources? haha you fell for that?)
You don't have control of the data if you're suddenly asked to leave (for cause, or because they suddenly realized they are out of cash and can't pay you any more). And you don't have control of it while you're there (yeah I used to read emails when I was a sysadmin; and that " " file that one of my cow orkers thought he'd "hidden" in his home dir. But trust me, after the first couple of times, you realize people's sleaze is boring and you stop bothering to snoop). Someone already knows about your ascii-pr0n collection, hairy handshake man.
If you need personal stuff with you, get a big, secure thumb drive and use that.
If it really is a national security issue, all bets are off.
But it probably isn't. It's the Bush administration's legal stink-bombs gumming up the future, just as they were planned to do.
We waste our time and money and attention trying to remove the rotting fish from the walls, while he and his buddies are laundering the money they looted from our safe.
First off, we're giving massive tax rebates for buying one of those, and for good reason. They eliminate almost all of the bad things that gasoline combustion causes. Which obviates the need for gasoline taxes, which will still apply to those who drive gasoline vehicles. We'll raise the taxes on them and force them into electric vehicles.
Second, it's much more efficient when the time comes simply to slap a bigger tax on registering a vehicle.
Third, it isn't illegal for the government to collect information about you. It's illegal for law enforcement to pry into information about you when it doesn't have probable cause that you are committing a crime. No matter who has the information or how it was collected.
I can tell this topic is going to be dominated by people who never had to deal with the internals of a revision-control system, much less a configuration-management system, because the issues are somewhat trivial once you get past your fear of the variables.
Slashdot Mirror
Index the registration tax to odometer reading and vehicle gross weight.
Case closed.
Stop being paranoid.
"Gas taxes have nothing to do with "the bad things" about gasoline."
I didn't say they did, though actually, they do, because those taxes are also used to implement pollution controls and monitor compliance, etc.
But what I said was, we're giving tax rebates to buyers of electric vehicles because the vehicles eliminate most of the bad stuff about gasoline: the polluting fumes, the foreign dependency, the dangerous production system, the onerous distribution system, the chemical dangers, etc. Electricity isn't exactly zero-carbon-footprint or perfectly safe, but it's a whack better than the flammable poison we have to buy from people we currently call our enemies and then pump into the air half-burned.
Fewer by a few orders of magnitude than the number we've killed on purpose despite the difficulty discriminating between them and their human shields.
Unless they changed it to "BP" they didn't change it enough.
Every time I do that it backfires and proves that unless I make noise my vote won't make a difference.
Wow are you ignorant.
There's lots of things that are called "free speech" by the people who were being tried for their content that aren't free speech.
The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is about 150 years old, now.
You're certainly free to speak. You're just not necessarily free to make it the only thing that reaches the ears of literally every voter, over and over again, for months before the election.
Because that's not speech. It's an exploit. A hack of the apparatus of informing the electorate. And the difference has nothing to do with the content of what is said, but with how it's delivered.
Corporations are not voters. They do not have the same rights as citizens. They should not have the right to dominate elections. As we've seen over and over again, corporate interests are inimical to the interests of individuals. I and the law will have no problem when they are completely banned from participating as corporations in endorsing or funding candidates.
Now grow the fuck up, turn off Rush Limbaugh, and read a book or two. Look up Oliver Wendell Holmes. He's the one with the "the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" theory of rights. It's a good theory.
He's right. You're wrong. Apparently he's the unlucky one who gets to see it first more than once.
I don't recall that "Common Sense" named a political candidate.
Recall the issue raised by the original strawman: a book of 500 pages of discussion of political systems, with one line endorsing one candidate.
Take out the one line, and it's free speech. Leave in that line, and it's a campaign contribution.
Learn to distinguish the two, and you won't end up living under the King of Citigroup.
Republicans are amateurs when it comes to ripping off the public compared to the Democrats.
Really? They not only stole $700 billion from the Treasury, they made it look like it was Obama's idea.
And the first income tax? Republicans.
You're the sort who falls easily for the "Hey look it's Batman!" trick.
You watche too much Fox News.
Troll around in here for awhile, then come back and try to tell me it's the same-old, same-old:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/
He's not continuing the policy, and he's certainly not covering anything up.
He's defending the nation in a legal matter. As the Chief Executive and the person who appoints the Attorney General, that's his job. Unfortunately, it's a hateful legal matter left behind by a criminal administration. I'd prefer that his first order in office were to prosecute every one of them.
I don't know why he didn't, but as he's a reasonable person and his enemies are not, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
No, they are not.
They are restricting their request to the public portion of internet communications. The routing information, not the payload data. The envelope, not the content.
They may or may not get that. It's reasonable to request it. You can encrypt everything else if you want it to be private, but you yourself have to disclose the addressing information to the machinery, and the machinery is considered public. There is no doctor-patient privilege between you and your ISP.
If you don't like the law, just say it. Don't pretend it's one party's fault just because you don't like that party.
...would like their good names back, now.
After what Carly Fiorina did to H-P, and the nation, and now this tool...hell, I remember when "hp" on the logo meant the very best in quality, not scandal and treason...
Oops. This was supposed to be a reply to the post below yours. Here's the link to his post:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1746252&cid=33168150
There's a reason they call it "hyper" text...
No.
But I misposted my answer to your post on the post above yours.
Oops.
Here's the answer:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1746252&cid=33168798
No. Here's the latest executive order:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526
And I'm not sure that was ever true. Even if it is made public, it has to be declassified under proper authority to legally be declassified. And if it still has valid security implications, it can remain classified. Which means certain people can't legally discuss it, much less process it on their non-classified machinery, while others will openly discuss it. The idea being at the least that discussing one secret can lead to exposure of another, and mixing secrets and non-secrets in improper ways can confuse what is and isn't secret.
There are a number of issues of invalid classification that were raised in wikileaks' self-justification for publishing this information that should legally force the authorities to declassify those particular items; but clearly that does not apply to the entirety of what they released, and certainly not to the un-analyzed, un-redacted form in which they were released. Leaving in the names of people who are still in danger is a clear violation of law even when properly declassifying information.
At any rate, none of this information has been declassified by the proper authority, so all of it is still legally considered classified, and anyone accessing it is liable to be charged with a crime.
The only unsettled issue here is the scope of the release. It's not merely a few copies of documents that need to be collected and secured, and a few civilians to brief and warn about further disclosure. It's potentially millions of unauthorized computers infected that legally may be seized, an entire society led to misunderstand the role and importance of secrets, and our security apparatus put in a position of looking like fools for trying to follow the law and maybe save a few lives out of the dozens or hundreds that the insecurity apparatus put in danger.
Which brings up the simple question of moral relativism. This started with a few people being killed in a form of collateral damage, and may end up with hundreds being killed in retribution murders. People talk about who has blood on their hands. Well, we all do, in the end, but for some of us the blood comes with moral authority and a lack of criminal guilt.
The military is getting this right, legally.
"There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true." - the US Navy.
Their position is that the material is classified, and processing classified material on non-approved equipment is a crime.
They aren't taking the fallacious position that "everyone's doing it" eliminates the criminal responsibility.
So, yes, I'm saying that anyone who's downloaded those documents has, in fact, committed a crime.
Now it's up to the DoJ to figure out what to do about that.
It is unethical on your behalf to use work resources for private business
Actually it's not, if using those resources doesn't cost the company anything. It may still be against company policy, but that's a contractual problem, not an ethical one.
It is unethical to make the company pay for your time to do those things, though. To the point that it's criminal.
So get back to work.
That's why I'm never going to die.
I couldn't handle the embarassment...
^^^ THAT!
I used to treat company drives as personal space.
Then I became a consultant, doing a number of jobs for a couple of months each, and realized it was (a) horribly inefficient and (b) privacy-degrading. (That whole thing about unauthorized use of company resources? haha you fell for that?)
You don't have control of the data if you're suddenly asked to leave (for cause, or because they suddenly realized they are out of cash and can't pay you any more). And you don't have control of it while you're there (yeah I used to read emails when I was a sysadmin; and that " " file that one of my cow orkers thought he'd "hidden" in his home dir. But trust me, after the first couple of times, you realize people's sleaze is boring and you stop bothering to snoop). Someone already knows about your ascii-pr0n collection, hairy handshake man.
If you need personal stuff with you, get a big, secure thumb drive and use that.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1746238&cid=33167504
If it really is a national security issue, all bets are off.
But it probably isn't. It's the Bush administration's legal stink-bombs gumming up the future, just as they were planned to do.
We waste our time and money and attention trying to remove the rotting fish from the walls, while he and his buddies are laundering the money they looted from our safe.
Don't confuse what Obama is doing with what Bush did.
Bush committed a crime by suborning those illegal wiretaps.
Obama is trying to avoid having to prosecute Bush and his administration for that crime, and to avoid having the government sued over what Bush did.
But when it comes right down to it, and he can't avoid it, that's what will happen. And it won't be Obama's fault.
Enjoy your healthcare.
I think your complaint is driven by paranoia.
First off, we're giving massive tax rebates for buying one of those, and for good reason. They eliminate almost all of the bad things that gasoline combustion causes. Which obviates the need for gasoline taxes, which will still apply to those who drive gasoline vehicles. We'll raise the taxes on them and force them into electric vehicles.
Second, it's much more efficient when the time comes simply to slap a bigger tax on registering a vehicle.
Third, it isn't illegal for the government to collect information about you. It's illegal for law enforcement to pry into information about you when it doesn't have probable cause that you are committing a crime. No matter who has the information or how it was collected.
I can tell this topic is going to be dominated by people who never had to deal with the internals of a revision-control system, much less a configuration-management system, because the issues are somewhat trivial once you get past your fear of the variables.